Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajbinder Singh, and Another

DRT4 May 2026OA/415/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 22.37 lakhs owed by defendants. The court ruled for simple interest at 08% p.a. instead of the claimed higher rate, considering market trends.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that defendants are liable to pay Rs. 22,37,431.38 jointly and severally with costs and simple interest @08.00% p.a. Recovery to be effected via sale of hypothecated assets.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajbinder Singh, and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 415/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.05.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited having its Registered Office at Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai- 400013 and having its Branch Office at Sangrur, Punjab and also at Plot no. I-15, Sector 101, Alpha IT City, Mohali, through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Deepak Sharda

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Rajbinder Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdit Singh, R/o Gokal Patti, Khanal Kalan, Sangrur, Punjab- 148035

¶10

Sh. Gurdit Singh, S/o Sh. Gamdur Singh, R/o Gokal Patti, Khanal Kalan, Sangrur, Punjab- 148035

¶11

…Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for applicant (through VC)

¶14

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 29.04.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 22,37,431.38 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty One and Paise Thirty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Deepak Sharda, Authorized Representative of the applicant bank , who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 21.08.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA/415/2026 HDFC BANK VS. RAJBINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that defendants approached the applicant for the grant of Vehicle Loan of Rs. 25.95 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 13.09.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Vehicle Loan of Rs. 26,58,171.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants hypothecated their movable asset namely Eicher Pro 3018 Plus M HSD bearing Registration no. PB13BT8445, Chassis no. MC2CBMRC0RG115042 and Engine no. E426CDRG489307 vide Agreement for Loan and Guarantee along with RC dated 27.09.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Documents executed: Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 27.09.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 16.02.2026 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgement, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs. 22,37,431.38, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶19

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 29.04.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Deepak Sharda, Legal Manager/Authorized Representativ e, HDFC Bank Limited, h as been filed.

¶20

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel (through VC) that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶21

3 OA/415/2026 HDFC BANK VS. RAJBINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 22,37,431.38 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty One and Paise Thirty Eight Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest in relief clause @9.51% p.a. plus @2% penal interest from the date of filing of the application till the realization.

¶23

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the hypothecated asset, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs. 22,37,431.38 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty One and Paise Thirty Eight Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of

¶24

¶25

OA/415/2026 HDFC BANK VS. RAJBINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶26

the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated asset of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶27

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.05.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶28

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶29

Dated: 04.05.2026

¶30

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶31

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajbinder Singh, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Rajbinder Singh, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Vilagichb (Opc) Private Limited and Another

Uco Bank versus Sh. Tarun Sehgal and Others

Bank of India versus Sh. Manmohan Singh

Yes Bank versus M/S a K Packers and Others

State Bank of India versus Smt. Jasjeet Kaur and Another

Uco Bank versus Messrs Kanwar Poultry Farm and Another